Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 17, 2011 11:00pm-11:30pm PDT

11:00 pm
electronic waybills are going to be safe. i don't know how anybody can claim such a thing. in the history of mankind, and has been proving that man is not perfect and the pentagon could not provide personal information and the largest cab industries, the microsoft could not provided. they just recently found they have said their vulnerability and it cannot be protected. [tone] [applause] >> thank you. i am a cabdriver. one time, the homeless guy so drunk -- digest stop by the red
11:01 pm
light and he was so drunk he spit on my windshield. i a just can't do anything because i'm just a cabdriver. maybe he beat me or maybe he broke my window and i can do nothing. we're not challenging any rule or regulation, you are powerful and the budget people are making big decisions. but sometimes we come here to ask you, planes of people getting into it taxi is a like to be in the taxi exclusively and privately. most of the taxi rider's have an iphone. i just took the muni to come
11:02 pm
here. maybe they could put a good size television and they are happy to see a year advertising the muni because there are people all the time but not in the taxi because people are watching their e-mail with very busy people. i think this meter increase, you can do a little more imagination. you can [unintelligible] that is regularly going to increase to $2.48. that means an increase of about 11%. [tone] thank you. >> for the record, if there is
11:03 pm
any other member of the public who wishes to address the board on this matter, if you could please come forward now. >> i'm an owner and a driver. i just had a simple question. >> could you speak into the microphone? >> i have a simple question i asked it last time. i do not know what status we have as cabdrivers anymore. are we businessmen? we used to get a little receipt when we paid our card from the tax collector that said this gives you permission to see your business license to operate in various locations in the city. we have not gotten that this year. i.t. need to know what status we
11:04 pm
have as businessmen because if we have status as independent businessmen, i'm not sure a lot of these things like electronic waybills are forcing me to take a discount on my credit card operations are legal. if i'm an independent businessman, you cannot force me to take a discount on my work and sales and that is effectively what you are doing. i think is pretty important that we get straightened out where we stand. up until this year, we would get this receipt and it would say you are a businessman, you are running a business, this is from the tax collector, you have paid your permission to operate in various locations around the city. i don't know where we stand now and i think it's worthwhile for the sfmta to think about that and give us a description. right now, it is a vague and ambiguous situation.
11:05 pm
thank you. [applause] >> is that it, madam secretary? >> if there is anybody else who wishes to address the board, they should make their way into the room now or to the microphone, please. [tone] >> i would like to speak about the electronic waybills. when we pick up the customer and we are just dropping the customer, we need a ride and the passenger coming in the cab says he is not giving the time to
11:06 pm
write down the way bills. he just asks us to go and we cannot write exactly how much the fare is and how much he gives for the tip. we have -- we are already examined by the way bills and everything we have, so wheel we are already -- though waybills are scanned and we are the same way, we are scanned by the way bills, but with how is it to maintain the waybills -- we try to keep it but it is very stressful -- you are keeping each and every for their exactly as it is.
11:07 pm
the taxicab industry is big and i think we will lose good drivers, pushing the drivers like this, so please consider this matter. i am driving for eight years and there are senior drivers and there are younger drivers and the coming into the industry to drive, so please make a note of that. thank you very much for giving him the time. [tone] >> mr. chairman, seeing no one else approaching you, i think there is no one else seems to be coming forward, i think you have heard all of the people who wish to address you today. >> that will conclude the public comment on items 11 and 12. i just had a comment i want to make. i know staff is working hard concerning the industry, but
11:08 pm
these last minute changes to staff recommendations and not vetting the items with the group's most impacted by the items creates unnecessary and undue destruction and that said to the general public. in the future, make sure you get in good from the affected communities well in advance of presenting items to the board. with that, i would like to open it for discussion. >> thank you very much. we have two items before us. item 11 is a small fare increase proposal and item 12 was a recommendation to propose implementation of the way bill deadline so this can be further looked at. i would like to take up item 12 first and move the item. credit goes to the deputy director. we have heard about how the town hall process is working. we cannot always expected to reach consensus, but at least it produces information. the proposal addresses the
11:09 pm
comment you just raised procedurally, which is, i believe there are reasons to go forward with electronic waybills and i believe there are reasons to do it with further input from the industry. as i understand item 12, it is essentially a lifting of the current deadline for implementation so we can have exactly the advanced process you just urge. we have heard from the industry and i think it's a good idea. with that, i would move item 12 today. >> is there any other further comment? can we move on that one, first? >> he can. it requires a second. >> i will second. >> all those in favor? opposed? that item passes. item 11, we are only dealing with the way time on the meager increase. -- the meter increase.
11:10 pm
not the flag drop. >> on this one, it has been eight years since the fare increase. there have been fuel increases, standard inflation, and i just want to say to the cab drivers and other members of the industry you have come to speak with us coming have represented yourself very well and yet made the case eloquently and passionately. i am in favor of a fare increase and also in favor of changing the system so we don't have to deal with this ad hoc and we don't have to do other things to deal with this and more systematic fashion. there is a small part of the proposal we have, procedurally, just to be clear, we are not looking on the entire fare increase nor can we vote on it for sunshine reasons. nor can we as a board consider the entire package as one so we can consider how much of an
11:11 pm
increase is being given to drivers and how much of the total is being imposed on the public. i think our friend from the division of weights and measures may ak procedural -- made a key procedural point. it doesn't matter when we vote on this because it doesn't have to be for fairness sake and for the color schemes. there are issues with voting on one piece of the proposal. there is also a significant issue, which is that we are asking through a fare increase which i support, our writers and members of the public to support this fare increase. while they would be receptive to the fact it has been years since there has been a fair increase, they would say it has been a long time since we've had a service increase. that has nothing to do with the drivers. i accept that fact. there is no sense from anyone i talked to the problem with the
11:12 pm
service in this town is the drivers. they are professional, courteous, they know where they are going. that is not the issue. the fact is those drivers are so much in demand, we cannot get them. that has always been the issue. to go forward with the fare increase without offering some incremental, however small, benefit to the riding public in the increased service is to not couple be issues properly. what i would suggest is to hear the request, that we continue this one piece of the item which we would not implement even if we passed today or until the rest had been heard, continue this one piece of the item until one of our to next meetings and no later. if it cannot get these other
11:13 pm
items before us, so be it, we will vote on a fare increase. but i think we can get a fair increase. we have a pilot already approved by the board and that's a pretty small proposal. several dozen cabs in that peak times. we have heard the main concern and we are looking at addressing availability. it would also be important to clarify how the credit card fee is going to be handled and that will not be imposed on the riding public. i'm concerned about whether it should be 5% and who should bear it in the industry, but we should clarify it is not going to be the public picking up. i think there are some legal reasons we could not do that in the first place. there were parts of the proposal called for premiums for dispatch and other things. i have been a proponent of that
11:14 pm
on a voluntary basis. i do not think we should be mandating that on the industry. if some of the color schemes want to implement on a voluntary basis, it's up to them and that might be one way to encourage drivers to do that. that is something that's not far enough along the pipeline that i would want to hold of a meter increase for that. that said, in summary, i will favor a fare increase if it's coupled with even minimal service improvement. we had one very far along in the pipeline. even if we were to vote on it today, it would not be implemented until we consider the flag drop and other issues because of weights and measures. with that, i would make a motion to continue this to either of our june meetings and no later.
11:15 pm
11:16 pm
11:17 pm
there are no members of the public on this body. no matter how we constitute anybody that oversees this,
11:18 pm
it's impossible to represent everybody in the industry, it's not going to happen. it's not something that i like but i do think that we need to be responsive to the taxi riding public. and as all of you know, i do not just ride special taxis, i ride the regular taxis too on almost a daily basis. that's why i say to you that taxi drivers want proof that we care about them. one of the ways we do that is to put immediate money in their pockets. how do we do that? we to that by raising the meter.
11:19 pm
but i also believe that we can cannot do the meter increase without consulting the cab companies who also at the same time i believe need a gate increase also. i know that's a -- that's unpopular for many drivers who think that they're being overly charged by the companies anyway but i believe if we don't do both things together, then the public has a right to be disgruntled and i for one do not want to hear complaints twice on the same couple of issues. i'd just like to take care of it all in one package. so i think about having this
11:20 pm
done within the next two meetings in june is an excellent one. i don't think we can wait much longer than that. so, you know, all of you, i know all of you have my phone number. continue to use it, please. i welcome your input. whether you yell at me or not, that's my job, ok. just be civil about it. >> thank you, director bridges. >> i think i need a point of clarity to make sure i understand clearly, if, first of all, i support the increase but i'd like to know for sure, all the proposals before us for the increase and implementation, if we do this, it could not be done all at one
11:21 pm
time in the system or it would, i guess, cost additional money to do it incrementally. is that true? >> i think that was a question related to the meters and the annual, i guess, calibration that we would want to do anything related to the meters all at one time. if we do it in separate steps that would create additional cost, registration costs. >> so in moving it, doing it all at once, voting on it two meetings from now, one meeting from now, would not make a difference. >> not as it relates to implementation. whatever point you make that decision, whether it's the fee increase now or the meter increase now and some subsequent time you did the drop, we would not have staff recommend to start any action until we get all that resolved in one shot.
11:22 pm
>> and in terms of having everything from staff by our next meeting, is it fair to say we will have everything we need to make a decision on everything in the next two meetings? >> in terms of the peak time medallions, it's my understanding we could have a recommendation to this board by the end of june. second meeting in june. so that's that item. we can also at the same time come back with a recommendation as it relates to the meter increase which you have before you, i believe we also -- >> the full package. >> full package, flag drop too. >> i want to make sure when we say full package, because i heard a discussion about gates. >> if we could take it item by item and let me know, let the board know, what we will have by that meeting.
11:23 pm
>> i'm walking down that. we can have a proposal on peak time medallions, we can bring back the meter increase and that is mileage as well as wait time and then we can also bring you pack a proposal as it relates to a flag drop. so we can have all of that by the second meeting in june. >> personally to me, that's fine. i don't need to wait for the gate increase, that's a different issue that needs to be vetted, i wouldn't want to hold this up for that. i mean i realize the director may feel differently or feel differently about timing but for me if we get those three things an clarity about how the credit cards are going to work vis-a-vis the customer, there's a whole mess of issue it is deal with as to whether 5% is the right fee and who bears it in the industry but if those four things came forward in june, i'd be satisfied and prepared to vote for the fare increase then. >> we can do that.
11:24 pm
>> given that, and given the fact we have all the information and we can support the industry, because i fully support the fare increase, i think it's long overdue, it is a long time to wait based on the cost of living increase and san francisco is an expensive city to live in, i would want everyone to be able to live in the city and live comfortably, so if we have all that information, we can vote for the meter increase, the flag drop, everything, then i would support moving it and being prepared to vote to support everything on that day. >> director brigman? >> i'll second the motion to continue item 11. >> i fully support an increase for the drivers, you know, this last-minute notice of, talk about a flag drop, that's really kind of -- that really threw everything off kilter now. my concern is, i know there's a real immediate out there for
11:25 pm
the drivers. i know there are things that logistically have to get done. so i guess the question i pose is, if you look at just the portion that we want to pass, you know, can we show our commitment by passing that now and having that done with? >> i think that was from a staff perspective, that's what we were proposing today to recommend the meter increase, recognizing the fact that we have to come back with the flag drop, we had to come back with the peak time medallion program, but as a show of good will and support for the industry and drivers, recognizing that the gentleman from weights and measures, the meter increase would not occur prior to you taking action on these other items. from a logistical standpoint. >> i think we need to show support to the industry at this point. what i would ask is for that vote that we pass it, we have a
11:26 pm
a way to work out the logistics, at least the industry knows and got the message that we are concerned and we hear their message and we do understand the need out there. so i would like to make a recommendation to move with the item. >> mr. chairman, you actually have a motion and second on the floor that would be proper to deal with that motion first. >> so your first motion? >> it's director heineman, continue item 11 to the second meeting in june with the understanding that staff will bring back four items with regard to -- >> peak time medallions, flag drop, the current meter increase as well as -- what was the fourth? clarification an we handled waybills. >> i hear everything you're saying, vice chairman lee, and i, you know, the industry knows
11:27 pm
how i feel. they know i'm going to favor the meter increase. i think it's appropriate procedurally to do this all at once for the very reasons you stated at the outset of the discussion. >> so the motion is to continue item 11 to the second meeting in june, ke the june 21 meeting, to consider peak time medallions, flag drop increase, the meter increase and mileage for wait times and credit card charges. is that -- >> yes. so it's a motion to postpone. >> yes. >> and for the last time. >> is there a second? >> do you want a roll call vote? director bridges. >> aye. >> brinkman. brinkman aye. director lee, no. director oka.
11:28 pm
no. oka opposed. the item fails adoption. any motion of the m.t.a. board of directors requires four to pass. >> i want to propose a motion to approve the increases as stated. >> i'll second. >> so, mr. chairman -- >> are the city attorneys comfortable? of course she is. >> mr. chairman, just for clarification, on motion to approve the meter rate for wait time and mileage. >> yes. >> can i make a proposed amendment to this that we just clarify that if we adopt this right now, it will not be implemented for the reasons we
11:29 pm
talked about until we've finished this entire package of materials? >> yes. >> on motion to approve the meter rate for wait time and mileage with the understanding that there will be no implementation until the additional package is brought to you on june 21? >> yes. >> i'm sorry, we need a second for that one? >> yes. >> i'll second that. >> there's a motion on that, and a second. roll call rote? >> yes. >> director bridges. >> this is on the amendment? >> on the motion to -- >> with the amendment. >> it was a friendly amendment. so it was accepted. so this is on the motion to approve the meter rate for wait